英语论文网

such a broad range. Their Competing Values Framework combines these two dimensions, creating a 2x2 matrix with four clusters.

The Competing Values Framework has proven to be a helpful framework for assessing and profiling the dominant cultures of organizations because it helps individuals identify the underlying cultural dynamics that exist in their organizations. This framework was developed in the early 1980s as a result of studies of organizational effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981), followed by studies of culture, leadership, structure, and information processing (Cameron, 1986; Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

The framework consists of two dimensions, one that differentiates a focus on flexibility, discretion, and dynamism from a focus on stability, order, and control. Some organizations are effective if they are changing, adaptable, and organic, whereas other organizations are effective if they are stable, predictable, and mechanistic. This dimension ranges from organizational versatility and pliability (flexibility) on one end to organizational steadiness and durability on the other end.

The second dimension differentiates a focus on an internal orientation, integration, and unity from a focus on an external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry. That is, some organizations are effective if they have harmonious internal characteristics, whereas others are effective if they focus on interacting or competing with others outside their boundaries. This dimension ranges from organizational cohesion and consonance on the one end to organizational separation and independence on the other. Together these two dimensions form four quadrants, each representing a distinct set of organizational effectiveness indicators. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships of these two dimensions to one another along with the resulting four quadrants. These dimensions have been found to represent what people value about an organization's performance, what they define as good, right, and appropriate, how they process information, and what fundamental human needs exist, and which core values are used for forming judgments and taking action (Beyer & Cameron, 1997; Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Lawrence, 2001; Mitroff, 1983; Wilber, 2000).

Figure 2.2 Competing Values Framework

HIERARCHY

MARKET

ADHOCRACY

CLAN

As discussed earlier first dimension places the values of flexibility, discretion, and dynamism at one end of the scale with stability, order, and control on the other. This means that some organizations emphasize adaptation, change, and organic processes (like most start-up companies) while others are effective in emphasizing stable, predictable, and mechanistic processes (like NASA, Citigroup, and most universities). The second value dimension is marked by internal orientation, integration, and unity at one end of the scale with external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry on the other. Some organizations are effective through focusing on themselves and their internal processes 'If we improve our efficiency and do things right, we will be successful in the marketplace.' Others excel by focusing on the market or competition 'Our rivals have weak customer service, so this is where we will differentiate ourselves.'

What is notable about these dimensions is that they represent opposite or comp